Does the rise of the child free mean that attitudes have changed towards parents and children?

[Itchthescratch]

I have been on a few threads on MN recently where animosity amongst child free people towards parents seems to be ramping up. The underlying premise seems to be that parents shouldn't receive many or in some cases any concessions from society for having children because it was their choice. Children are no longer seen as a necessary part of society that will need to be subsidised to some extent by the state and everyone else, like the elderly or disabled, but are instead seen as the fulfilment of a parent's selfish desire in the the same way that someone might choose to have a pet.

AIBU or has anyone else noticed this?

Do you feel the same way about disabled people? What about the elderly who haven't paid sufficient tax over their lifetime to fund their cost to the state? Are they all parasites too. That is utterly vile.

How is it a false enquiry? There is absolutely nothing deceptive about the question and it's written plainly. You might disagree with the premise of my post but isn't this the point of the AIBU section of the forum?

I am frankly fed up of posters suggesting that any question raised about a contentious issue is somehow unacceptable or disingenuous as it's a pretty obvious attempt to shut down debate. I have written my belief in the OP, you are completely at liberty to disagree but to suggest I'm somehow angling to tear down child free women is bizarre.

I think its a convenient red herring about not being able to afford children. I think people look at parents and think, I actually dont want any of that.

In countries where there are government pensions and where women are more educated, the birth rate is lower, around the world. Thats not about whether people can afford kids or not, its about how women feel about being parents and raising kids.

We are animals at the end of the day, without society orchestration, like it was up to around 100 years ago, people just had kids, they popped them out every 18 months or so if married and fertile

Because we're animals, thats what animals do

But now we have contraception and agency over life choices and having kids is now a life choice, not something that is just a by produce of sex.

It’s not anti social. Children aren’t adults and they occasionally scream, they are loud and sometimes they bang toys.

Yes, it’s annoying, as are about a million different things I find annoying in sharing spaces with other people.

But I accept that children are children and will do things that children do and it isn’t fair on them to be told off 24/7 for simply existing.

But I suspect you're being sarcastic, trying to prove that posters are anti-child.

I am being sarcastic. But I’m certainly not trying to prove anything. Mumsnet is filled with posts complaining about children in any and all situations - children in cafes, in restaurants, on planes, on public transport, in parks, on pavements, in their own gardens, on iPads, simply playing, etc. It’s absolutely incessant. Parents quickly realise that no matter where they go, or what their child does, someone isn’t going to be happy about it. So yes, they definitely stop caring after a while.

Free prescriptions for children/pregnant women, free dental treatment for pregnant women, family tax credits, paid maternity leave, state-funded childcare, free/discounted travel for children, housing benefit that will pay for an actual flat or house rather than a bedsit if you have children and can't work - off the top of my head.

To be clear, I'm not talking about taking these things away from parents, I'm talking about levelling up so the rest of us get a share.

Yes, I had an education in a failing comprehensive school where I was bullied every day for five years. In fairness there were some highly dedicated teachers amongst the rest who had given up, but much of my education happened outside school because I was fortunate enough to be academically inclined and curious.

Did you ever get anything from the state when you were a child?

Every single person in this country had the opportunity to enjoy state funded prescriptions, healthcare and education when they were a child. You have had this too. How strange to pretend these are benefits afforded to parents when they're clearly benefits for the child themselves. We don't want the next generation to be uneducated and unhealthy. You have as much of an interest in this as everyone else.

The same goes with housing. Of course families need bigger homes than individuals or couples. Lots of families are over occupied and living in pretty terrible homes or in temporary accommodation. Imagine how crap that is for the children.

I think this lies at the heart of a lot of the resentment. You are listing everything that is afforded to children as benefits that are afforded to the parents and then feeling resentful that you aren't afforded the same as an adult but what would this even look like? My child might have discounted travel to get to school but I still have to pay full fare for example. So as a parent I have to pay one and a half fares to go anywhere as I can't leave my child at home alone. Meanwhile you pay one fare and claim that it's unfair because my child has a discounted fair. You are still better off financially. Studies have consistently shown that raising children is financially disadvantageous for parents.

Every single person in this country had the opportunity to enjoy state funded prescriptions, healthcare and education when they were a child. You have had this too.

I didn't list healthcare/education - those are essentials. Prescriptions - I don't think they should be free to anyone by default and that includes over-60s as well as children. It should be means-tested - i.e. only available to people and their dependents if they are receiving means-tested benefits.

So many people get free prescriptions, they'd be much cheaper if everyone had to pay and the amount was shared between everyone instead of a few people having to overpay so that everyone else gets the freebies. There'd be fewer people getting prescriptions that they don't really need as well.

See this reads like you think child free women are the issue actually.
Like you think that because some women aren’t having kids then those who do aren’t seen so favourably so something.
You should know by now a woman is judged no matter what she does.

I pay for my own mini pill I buy it from Boots

Prescriptions are arguably part of healthcare for children. You would have had them free as a child along with free dental and health checks and free glasses etc. Do you not see how paying for a child's prescriptions on top of your own would get very expensive? It's the same as the argument about transport. Parents aren't automatically paid more and yet there are loads of extra costs they have to cover to raise a child properly. Something has to give otherwise it would become completely unaffordable for anyone other than the very right to afford children. Is that what you want?

What is your point? Any parent on the mini pill that doesn't qualify for free prescriptions will need to do the same.

Which is why it should be means-tested for everyone, as I've said.

Agree I don't mind a few concessions to facilitate the workers of the future. IMO it's a small price to pay for not having to put up with screaming ab-dabs and whinging for years on end.

But let's not kid ourselves; no one has a baby for the reason of providing a future worker unit for the state. It's not a selfless choice - people have kids because they want them not because the state wants them to have them.

I can see why you've misunderstood but no that's not what happens for me. I'm a teacher, I don't take any breaks all day. We can all leave at 3pm if we want and don't have a meeting to stay for. I leave at 4pm having prepped and printed everything for my classes etc and do anything else I need to at home.

No special dispensation whatsoever and I make sure I stay on top of everything.

It depends on what we're talking about for me.

Should we make sure that our children are educated and invest in their future with good state schools, child benefit, free school meals etc ? Absolutely.

Should parents automatically be entitled to flexible working arrangements, having the Christmas period off etc just because they are parents? No.

Exactly this, people blathering on about birth rate declines and needing future workers and the need to procreate. This is not why people have kids, this is not why women primarily want kids (rather than men), its biology and craving a child. A lot of women however are finding they dont actually what that, thats not what is going to fulfill them

Well as im BUYING it straight from Boots im not taking up a GPs time.

Yes, but can't you see that you can't means test individuals but parents in the same way. For example, as an individual I might earn just above the threshold and be able to afford my own prescriptions at a push. If I suddenly had to pay for two children's prescriptions as well as my own then I would need a higher level of income to afford it all . Effective means testing would build this into the calculation and then you would still feel like parents get more concessions

So?

I think that's coming back to the point in your OP about life choices. Yes, you would need a higher income to afford two children. I'd need a higher income to afford some of the things I'd like to have but can't. It boils down to, either you can afford something or you can't, except it doesn't if you have children, and that's the part non-parents feel resentful about.

Why does motivation matter? Ultimately we need children as a society so this so something we should support and to some extent encourage.

You can make the same argument about people going into important professions such as becoming doctors. Many people will be motivated by ostensibly selfish desires such as the status or pay. We need doctors though as a society so we should support people to become doctors. We shouldn't undermine them and withdraw the support because their motivation isn't completely selfless or noble.

But we need children as a society so the argument falls down. At an individual level children may be a want but at a societal level they are a need. We need a reasonably high proportion of the population to have children. There aren't enough people that want children and can also afford them if we start expecting parents to cover every or even most of the costs that come with children.

I have kids but I agree that this was my choice and I only had the number I could afford. I’m sick of subsidising other people’s kids!

Happy to pay for education and so forth but not for those who keep having kids for the state to pay for.